HON.  RICHARD  PARKER,  OF  VIRGINIA, 


ON  THE 


PRESIDENT'S  MESS  \GE  IN  RELATIOxV  TO  CALIFORNIA. 


DELIVERED 


IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  THURSDAY,  FEBRUARY  28,  1850. 


WASHINGTON: 

HUNTED  AT  THE  CONGRESSIONAL  GLOBE  OFFICE. 
1850, 


incroit  Library 


GALIFORNIA-THE  SLAVE  QUESTION. 


The  House  being  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  on 
the  state  of  the  Union,  on  the  President's  Mes 
sage  communicating  the  Constitution  of  Cali 
fornia. 

Mr.  PARKER  said: 

Mr,  CHAIRMAN:  When  in  December  last  we 
assembled  here  from  the  different  portions  of  the 
Confederacy,  there  appeared  amongst  us  a  disposi 
tion  to  cultivate  kind  feelings  with  each  other,  and 
to  meet  in  a  spirit  of  frankness  the  various  ques 
tions  of  difference  amongst  us.  And  from  all  1 
then  heard  from  northern  gentlemen  on  this  side 
of  the  chamber,  I  did  not  for  a  moment  doubt  that 
an  honest,  and,  I  believed,  a  successful  effort 
would  be  made  to  accommodate,  in  a  manner  sat 
isfactory  to  all, -the  dissensions  existing  amongst 
us  in  reference  to  the  slavery  question. 

Diversity  of  opinion  on  this  subject  had  for  a 
long  time  disturbed  those  amicable  relations  which 
should  prevail  in  a  Confederacy  of  sovereign  States, 
and  was  threatening  the  very  existence  of  that 
Confederacy;  and  it  was  hoped — I  may  say  the 
country  expected — that  all  her  representatives 
would  unite  in  one  energetic  effort  to  restore  har 
mony  to  our  Federal  councils,  and  by  removing 
the  causes  for  disquiet  and  apprehension,  to  place 
upon  a  yet  more  stable  foundation  the  destinies  of 
this  glorious  republic.  To  effect  this  great  and 
hallowed  work,  it  had  the  right  to  expect  that  we 
should  meet  in  this  hall,  as  the  representatives  of 
independent  yet  united  States  should  meet,  with 
feelings  of  patriotism  in  our  breasts,  with  a  love 
of  country  which  would  enable  us  to  bear  with 
much  for  its  welfare,  with  a  sincere  purpose  to 
deliberate  calmly  upon  the  troubles  and  the  dan 
gers  which  surround  us — in  a  word,  in  a  spirit  of 
conciliation,  as  men  resolved  to  practice  towards 
each  other  and  towards  all  portions  of  the  Con 
federacy,  that  courtesy  of  demeanor  and  charity 
of  feeling  so  necessary  for  the  advancement  of  the 
public  weal. 

Meeting  in  such  a  spirit,  and  acting  in  accord 
ance  with  its  demands,  we  might  have  drawn  still 
more  closely  together  the  bonds  which  unite  us; 
we  might  have  hoped  that  success  would  crown 
our  efforts,  and  that  we  might  have  settled,  once 
and  forever,  the  only  subject  that  could  possibly 
dissever  the  Union. 

But,  I  regret  to  say  it,  these  good  feelings  seem 
to  have  been  displaced  by  feelings  of  a  very  dif 
ferent  character.  And  northern  men  and  south 
ern  men,  in  appearance,  have  occupied  towards 


each  other  on  this  floor  rather  the  attitude  of  the 
representatives  of  hostile  nations  than  that  of 
members  of  the  same  legislative  council. 

That  we  from  the  South  should  speak  warmly, 
whenever  any  attempt  was  made  to  restrict  or  en 
croach  upon  our  rights,  in  a  matter  of  such  vital 
concern  to  us,  was  natural — was  to  be  expected. 
In  truth,  we  should  be  false  to  our  constituents, 
false  to  the  feelings  they  entertain  upon  the  subject 
of  these  attacks  upon  our  guarantied  rights,  if  we 
did  not  speak  in  the  language  of  firmness  and  de 
termination.  We  at  the  South  do  believe  that,  for 
the  last  thirty  years,  you  of  the  North ,  from  feelings 
of  a  blind,  but  not  the  less  hurtful  philanthropy, 
with  some;  from  an  anxiety  for  political  power  with 
others;  and  with  others  still,  from  more  improper 
motives,  have  violated,  to  our  injury  and  oppres 
sion,  the  most  sacred  guarantees  of  the  Constitu 
tion  ,  and  have  assumed  to  this  Government  powers 
which  never  were  granted  to  it,  and  never  would 
have  been  granted  by  that  portion  of  the  Confed 
eracy  from  which  we  come.  It  is  our  duty,  then, 
to  warn  you — not  in  tones  of  anger  or  defiance, 
yet  in  the  language  of  a  fixed  resolution—that  the 
course  you  are  pursuing  may  involve  both  you 
and  us  in  one  common  calamity.  Now,  gentle 
men  from  the  North  choose  to  consider  the  lan 
guage  of  warning  as  the  language  of  defiance,  and 
permit  themselves  to  be  excited  beyond  measure, 
and,  I  must  say,  often  to  the  perversion  of  our 
real  meaning  into  something  intentionally  offen 
sive  to  themselves.  Thus,  when  my  colleague 
from  the  Richmond  district,  some  time  since  called 
upon  the  President,  in  the  name  of  the  State 
which  had  given  him  birth — of  the  State  which 
had  adopted  him  as  her  son — and  of  the  State 
where  he  had  fixed  his  home,  and  where  his  friends 
and  neighbors  lived — that  he,  at  least,  should  not 
be  found  using  the  influence  of  his  high  position 
to  fasten  upon  the  South  terms  injurious  to  her 
interests  and  degrading  to  her  honor;  and,  to 
make  his  appeal  still  more  effective,  reminded  the 
President,  that  on  that  battle-field  which  has  cov 
ered  him  with  glory",  and  has  raised  him  to  the 
highest  office  known  to  our  laws,  he  was  sus 
tained  by  men  from  all  portions  of  the  Union — 
from  the  South  as  well  as  from  the  North  —by  the 
brave  Mississippians,  as  well  as  by  the  gallant 
Indianians — gentlemen  have  chosen,  not  willfully, 
but  under  the  influence  of  excitement,  to  pervert 
the  sole  and  only  object  of  my  colleague  into  one 
of  vaingloryingon  his  part  of  the  prowess  of  south 
ern  troops,  when  contrasted  with  troops  from 


other  portions  of  the  Confederacy.  And  under 
this  impression  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Illi 
nois  [Mr.  BISSELL]  indulged  in  a  strain  of  re 
mark  by  no  means  calculated  to  restore  harmony 
to  this  House — a  strain  of  remark  which  grated 
harshly  on  every  southern  ear.  Himself  a  gallant 
soldier,  he  has  not  been  content  to  claim  for  those 
who  on  that  great  day  fought  under  his  immediate 
command,  the  tribute  of  praise  to  which  they  are 
justly  entitled,  and  which  the  whole  country  has 
long  since  awarded  ;  but  to  judge  him  by  his 
speech,  and  the  manner  in  which  it  was  delivered, 
he  has  virtually  denied  that  the  Mississippi  regi 
ment  was  entitled  to  any  praise  for  its  bearing  and 
services  in  that  battle. 

Mr.  BISSELL.  I  expressly  disaffirm  all  inten 
tion,  in  the  remarks  I  submitted  to  this  committee 
on  a  former  occasion,  of  casting  any  imputation 
on  the  Mississippi  regiment.  I  could  not  have 
been  so  unjust  to  that  regiment,  or  to  myself.  My 
object  solely  was  to  remove  an  erroneous  impres 
sion  which  had  been  created,  as  I  thought,  unin 
tentionally,  of  course,  by  the  remarks  of  the  gen 
tleman  from  Virginia,  [Mr.  SEDDON,]  in  reference 
to  certain  incidents  of  the  battle  of  Buena  Vista. 
I  take  pleasure  in  saying  now,  as  I  have  always 
said,  that  the  Mississippi  regiment  bore  itself  as 
gallantly  on  that  field  as  any  other  regiment  there. 

Mr.  PARKER  resumed  and  said,  I  understood 
the  honorable  gentleman  as  he  now  explains  him 
self.  I  was  confident  it  was  not  his  intention  to 
deny  those  services.  They  were  too  well  known  to 
induce  me  to  think  for  an  instant  that  he  was  deny 
ing  them.  But  still,  under  the  excitement  of  the 
moment,  he  did  not  mention  them;  and  if  it  should 
chance  that  the  honorable  gentleman's"  speech,  as 
delivered  here,  should  be  the  only  record  of  the 
conflict  at  Buena  Vista  that  should  descend  to  fu 
ture  times,  it  might  appear  that  a  southern  regi 
ment  had  claimed  the  greatest  honors  of  the  day, 
when,  in  truth,  it  was  not  even  engaged  in  the 
fight;  for  all  that  he  said  of  that  regiment  is,  that 
it  was  a  mile  and  a  half  distant  from  the  field. 
Now,  will  the  honorable  gentleman  wonder  that 
southern  men  manifest  occasional  excitement, 
when  questions  of  the  most  vital  concern  to  their 
constituents  are  agitated  here  from  day  to  day, 
when  so  unfounded  a  suspicion  of  wrong  to  him 
and  others,  being  intended  where  none  was  thought 
of,  caused  him  to  forget  what  was  due  to  gallant 
southern  men  who,  with  him,  bore  the  toils  and 
the  dangers  of  the  fight? 

But  again,  the  honorable  gentleman  has  thought 
proper  to  sneer  at  the  bravery  of  the  southern 
people.     He   has   told    us,  you  are  brave  men,  I 
admit;  aye  !  as  brave  as  your  fathers — not  braver — 
who   permitted   a  small,   ill-equipped,   enervated 
body  of  British   troops,  not  4,500  in  number,  to 
march   to  the  seat  of  Government,  burn  its  Capi 
tol,  destroy  its  archives,  and  this  almost  without 
a  blow.     Did  the  honorable  gentleman  say  this  by 
way  of  taunt?     Arid  is  it  his   settled  purpose  to 
arouse  a  feeling  in  this  House,  which  must  neces 
sarily  preclude  even  the  hope  of  arranging  that 
troublesome   question,  which   presses   so  heavily  j 
apon  us?     If  so,  I   think  he  mistakes  his  duty  as  ; 
a  representative,  whose  leadingwish  should  ever; 
be  to  promote,  in  every  proper  way,  and  on  all  ; 
suitable  occasions,  the  purposes  for  which,  as  the  ' 
Constitution  itself  declares,  this  Government  was  j 
;  I  mean  "  in  order  to  create  a  moie  per-  i 


feet  union,  establish  justice,  and  insure  domestic 
tranquillity."  These  objects,  surely,  are  not  ad 
vanced  by  the  course  which  the  honorable  gentle 
man  from  Illinois  is  pursuing. 

And  then,  again,  the  honorable  gentleman  has 
informed  the  House  and  the  country,  that  Illinois, 
which  furnished  nine  regiments  for  the  Mexican 
war,  will  furnish  thirty-six  regiments  to  suppress 
and  put  down  all  tumultuous  (^revolutionary 
movements  in  the  South.  Why  really,  sir,  I  might 
retaliate  on  the  honorable  gentleman,  arid  say  of 
him,  what  he  said  of  sou'hern  men,  that  he,  too,, 
at  times  indulges  in  a  little  gasconade;  but  I  will 
not  do  so,  my  object  being  peace  and  harmony.  I 
will,  however,  advise  the  honorable  gentleman  to 
reflect  more  carefully  upon  the  nature  of  the  gov 
ernments  under  which  we  live,  and  of  the  relations: 
of  the  States  of  this  Union  towards  each  other 
and  towards  this  Federal  Government,  before  he 
again  threatens  to  interfere,  by  armed  force,  with 
the  action  of  independent  sovereign  States.  Such 
studies  may  be  more  useful  than  his  enumeration 
of  the  cohorts  the  North  will  throw  upon  us,  in 
the  event,  that  by  your  own  folly  and  injustice, 
you  drive  us  to  seek  for  happiness  apart  from  all 
connection  with  you.  Now,  sir,  I  will  again  say 
thata  discussion, conducted  in  this  temper,  and  with 
such  allusions,  is  much  to  be  deprecated.  The 
public  interests  cannot  be  advanced  by  it,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  must  suffer  from  every  manifestation 
of  bad  feeling  in  this  hall;  and  I  therefore  hope 
that  we  will,  each  of  us,  restrict  ourselves  to  a 
fair,  full,  and  free  examination  of  the  various  ques 
tions  of  complaint  now  before  us  for  considera 
tion.  It  is  in  this  spirit  I  engage  in  an  investi 
gation  of  these  several  questions;  but  before  doing 
so,  I  would  assure  the  honorable  gentleman  from 
Illinois,  that  in  what  I  have  said  of  the  course  of 
remark  adopted  by  him  the  other  day,  it  is  very 
far  from  my  intention  to  wound  his  sensibilities, 
or  to  detract  in  any  way  from  the  enviable  posi 
tion  he  has  won  for  himself  by  his  gallant  bearing- 
in  our  war  with  Mexico. 

1  have  said  that,  for  years  past,  we  at  the  South 
have  had  many  and  good  causes  of  complaint  for 
injuries  inflicted  by  the  North. 

Before,  however,  entering  upon  the  considera 
tion  of  these  topics,  permit  me  to  allude  to  some 
of  the  many  unfounded  complaints  which,  since 
the  commencement  of  this  session,  northern  repre 
sentatives  have  made  against  us  of  the  South. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  asserted  that  in  all  our 
former  acquisitions  of  territory — of  Louisiana,  of 
Florida,  and  of  Texas — the  South  has  been  influ 
enced  by  the  most  selfish  motives,  and  has  insisted 
on  these  additions  because  they  would  be  to  its 
peculiar  advantage;  and  that  in  each  of  these  in 
stances  we  have  been  guilty  of  aggressions  upon 
the  North.  Now,  sir,  Louisiana  was  purchased 
to  secure  to  the  whole  country,  and  especially  to 
the  great  Northwest,  the  full  and  complete  con 
trol  of  the  Mississippi  river.  This  was  the  neces 
sity  for  its  purchase — a  necessity  not  originating 
in  any  intention  to  aggrandize  the  power  of  the 
South.  And  so  again  with  Florida.  The  inter 
ests  of  the  whole  country  required  the  extinction 
of  the  title  of  Spain,  whose  authority  over  that 
country  was  so  slight,  that  she  had  abandoned  it 
almost  entirely  to  bands  of  savages,  who,  led  on 
by  unprincipled  adventurers,  were  giving  constant 
annoyance  and  doing  serious  injury  to  the  Union 


in  many  of  its  most  essential  interests.  Besides, 
we  gave  for  Florida  other  southern  territory,  more 
important  to  Spain  because  more  convenient  to 
her  other  possessions  on  this  continent;  and  thus 
by  its  acquisition  we  did  not  in  any  degree  add  to 
the  extent  of  southern  territory.  And  when  it 
was  proposed  to  annex  Texas  to  our  Union — 
Texas,  which  once  was  part  of  that  Union — did 
not  the  North*  as  well  as  the  South  speak  out 
boldly  in  her  behalf,  and  demand  her  annexation 
on  grounds  of  high  State  policy  ?  Our  soundest 
statesmen  regarded  her  annexation  as  essential  to 
the  peace  and  welfare  and  power  of  the  Union. 
Foreign  nations  took  the  same  view,  and  England 
and  France  exhausted  all  the  arts  of  diplomacy  to 
prevent  this  great  result.  And  gentlemen  from  the 
North  are  now  doing  injustice  to  their  own  patri 
otic  efforts  in  1844,  when  they  cite  the  annexation 
of  Texas  as  an  evidence  of  southern  aggression, 
and  say  that  it  was  effected  against  the  convictions 
and  the  wishes  of  the  North.  In  fact  it  was  neither 
North  nor  South  that  has  made  these  extensions 
of  our  empire.  They  are  the  glorious  fruits  of 
that  republican  policy  which  has  no  sectional 
views,  and  which  has  ever  looked,  and  I  trust  ever 
will  look,  to  the  welfare  of  the  Union,  and  the 
whole  Union. 

And  this  same  enlarged  and  catholic  spirit,  which 
in  1844  induced  the  northern  Democracy  to  extend 
the  area  of  our  Union  by  embracing  within  it  the 
State  of  Texas,  has  ever  been  reciprocated  by  the 
South. 

In  the  Revolution,  the  South  sent  her  sons  to 
perish  on  northern  fields,  in  defence  of  northern 
soil.  Yes  !  in  that  struggle  North  and  South  stood 
shoulder  to  shoulder  by  each  other.  The  war  of 
1812  was  waged  for  rights  peculiarly  dear  to  the 
commercial  States  of  the  North.  It  was  waged 
for  "  free  trade  and  sailors'  rights" — rights  in 
which  the  South  felt  no  peculiar  concern,  but 
which  she  maintained  with  as  much  spirit  as  if 
her  own  dearest  interests  were  involved.  So  we 
of  the  South  stood  by  you  in  your  controversy 
respecting  your  northeastern  boundary;  and  still 
later,  though  threatened  with  the  power  of  Eng 
land,  when  the  time  had  come  for  asserting  your 
claim  to  the  far  northern  territory  of  Oregon. 

But  an  honorable  gentleman  from  Ohio  [Mr. 
CAMPBELL]  complained  that  the  South  had  re 
pealed  the  tariff  acts  of  1828  and  1842,  and  spoke  of 
these  acts  of  repeal  as  aggressions  upon  the  North, 
and  upon  northern  capital.  This  discovery  is  en 
tirely  due  to  that  gentleman,  and  I  feel  confident  no 
one  will  contest  with  him  the  merit  of  having  made 
it.  Why,  sir,  those  acts  had  proved  of  the  greatest 
injury  to  every  interest  in  the  country,  excepting 
the  manufacturing  interest  only.  Our  selfish  pol 
icy,  as  developed  in  them,  had  closed  against  us 
the  markets  of  the  world,  and  left  the  rich  and 
varied  productions  of  the  earth  to  waste  upon  our 
hands,  and  our  shipping  to  rot,  for  want  of  em 
ployment,  at  their  wharves.  Their  repeal  has 
given  a  new  impulse  to  each  of  these  employ 
ments;  and,  under  the  genial  influence  of  our 
present  tariff  act,  the  husbandman  is  sure  to  re 
ceive  that  reward  which  is  due  to  his  industry; 
and  our  commerce,  unshackled,  once  more  whitens 
every  ocean,  bearing  upon  its  bosom  the  produc 
tions  of  every  clime,  and  free  to  contribute  to  the 
comfort  and  relief  of  man  wherever  he  is  to  be 
found.  And  yet  the  honorable  gentleman  speaks 


of  laws  that  have  proved  thus  beneficial,  as  ag 
gressions  upon  the  North. 

I  now  leave  the  consideration  of  charges  such 
as  these,  and  will  briefly  examine  the  justice  of 
those  complaints  which  the  entire  South  utters 
against  the  North. 

And,  in  the  first  place,  gentlemen  of  the  North, 
permit  me  to  direct  your  attention  to  a  subject  of 
complaint,  about  which  the  people  I  represent  feel 
the  greatest  anxiety  and  concern — I  mean  the  con 
duct  of  your  people,  of  your  judges,  and  your 
legislatures  with  respect  to  the  restoration  of  fugi 
tives  from  labor. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  Articles  of  Confeder 
ation  contained  no  provision  for  the  restoration  of 
such  of  our  slaves  as  might  flee  from  one  State  to 
another.  And  prior  to  the  adoption  of  our  Con 
stitution,  the  want  of  such  a  provision  subjected 
those  States  most  interested  in  slavery  to  great  in 
convenience,  annoyance,  and  loss.  We  also  know 
that  this  entire  subject  was  carefully  considered  in 
the  Convention  which  framed  the  Constitution; 
and  we  further  know  that  the  Constitution  would 
never  have  been  adopted,  had  it  not  contained  that 
full  and  complete  provision  for  the  protection  of 
our  slave  property  which  we  find  in  it.  That  pro 
vision  is,  that  "  no  person  held  to  service  or  labor 
in  one  State,  under  the  laws  thereof,  escaping  into 
another,  shall,  in  consequence  of  any  law  or  regu 
lation  therein,  be  discharged  from  such  service  or 
labor,  but  shall  be  delivered  up,  on  claim  of  the 
party  to  whom  such  service  or  labor  may  be  due." 
The  object  of  this  provision  of  the  Constitution 
is  too  plain  to  be  misunderstood.  It  was  intended 
to  secure  to  the  owner  of  a  fugitive  slave  the  same 
right  to  recapture  his  slave  in  the  State  to  which 
he  had  escaped  or  fled,  that  he  had  in  the  t  tate 
from  which  he  escaped.  And  any  law  or  regula 
tion  of  any  State,  which  in  any  way  interrupts, 
limits,  delays,  or  postpones  this  right,  is  a  violation 
of  this  Constitutional  guarantee  ;  and  any  conduct 
on  the  part  of  the  citizens  of  any  State,  which  has 
such  an  effect,  is  reprehensible  in  the  extreme,  is 
a  violation  of  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  and 
should  be  punished  in  the  most  exemplary  manner. 
Such  is  the  compact,  the  solemn  stipulation,  which 
you  made  with  us.  And  I  now  ask,  how  has  it 
been  kept  on  your  part?  Yes,  although  the  mem 
bers  of  your  several  State  Legislatures,  and  all 
your  Executive  and  Judicial  officers,  have  each  of 
them  sworn  to  support  this  Constitution,  and,  by 
taking  that  oath,  have  sworn  to  abide  by  this  com 
pact,  and  to  maintain  it  in  full  force,  how  has  it 
been  kept?  For  many  years  it  was  construed  by 
your  people  according  to  its  true  intention  and  de 
sign;  and  a  slave  escaping  into  a  non-slaveholding 
State  could  be  pursued,  and,  in  general,  as  easily 
apprehended  there  as  in  the  State  from  which  he 
fled.  But  for  many  years  past  its  obligation  has 
been  almost  entirely  disregarded;  and  in  some  of 
the  States  every  obstacle  is  thrown  in  the  way  of 
the  owner  who  goes  into  such  States  to  avail  him 
self  of  a  right  secured  to  him  by  the  Constitution. 
Your  people  interpose  every  difficulty  in  our  way, 
they  cast  every  insult  upon  us,  and,  whenever  it 
is  necessary  to  insure  the  escape  of  the  slave,  they 
do  not  hesitate  to  resort  to  any  degree  of  violence 
— a  violence  sometimes  amounting  to  murder, 
as  in  the  case  of  Kennedy,  of  Maryland.  So  great, 
indeed,  is  the  violence  to  which  we  are  subjected, 
that  I  know  ,,that  no  one  from  my  own  district 


6 


thinks  of  pursuing  his  slave  into  Pennsylvania — 
that  being  the  State  in  which  the  runaway  slaves 
from  my  portion  of  Virginia  are  harbored  and  con 
cealed — unless  he  goes  armed,  prepared  to  sell  his 
life  as  dearly  as  he  may,  and  always  in  apprehen 
sion  lest  death  may  be  the  consequence  of  his 
effort  to  recover  a  property,  which  is  his  by  the 
laws  of  his  own  State;  his  by  this  provision  of  the 
Federal  Constitution.  Do  you  say  that  you  can 
not  guard  against  these  acts  of  violence — t'hat  they 
are  sudden — the  acts  of  mobs  you  cannot  control? 
In  reply,  I  say  your  law  invites  this  violence  and 
these  mobs.  For  if,  in  the  attempt  to  recover  his 
slave,  "any  tumult" arises,  the  owner  is  made  re 
sponsible  for  it ;  and  a  tumult  is  therefore  always 
resorted  to — it  being  the  very  mode  for  an  escape 
pointed  out  by  your  laws.  Again,  your  law  makes 
it  highly  penal  in  any  officer  or  citizen  in  any  way 
to  aid  the  claimant  in  the  recovery  of  his  property. 
You  further  deny  to  him  the  privilege  of  securing 
his  property  in  any  "  building  belonging  to  the 
State,  or  to  any  town,  city,  or  person  therein." 
And  you  punish,  by  heavy  fine  or  long  imprison 
ment,  any  magistrate  who  dares  to  comply  with 
the  duties  assigned  him  by  the  Act  of  Congress  of 
1793. 

And  now,  can  the  North,  which  has  derived  so 
much  benefit,  and  has  grown  so  great  under  this 
Federal  Constitution,  feel  surprised  that  we  call 
upon  her,  by  the  faith  she  pledged  to  us  in  that 
sacred  instrument,  and  by  the  obligations  she 
thereby  assumed,  to  stand  by  this  provision  made 
for  our  benefit?  Or  can  she  be  surprised  that  her 
neglect  of  the  high  obligations  under  which  she 
brought  herself  by  accepting  this  Constitution, 
has  given  rise  to  disappointment  and  to  much 
angry  feeling  on  our  part?  Is  she  to  receive  all 
the  advantages  of  union,  and  yet  not  be  held 
bound  by  this  most  solemn  stipulation — a  stipu 
lation  so  distinct,  that  no  pretext  can  cover  its 
evasion  ? 

I  ask,  then,  not  by  way  of  favor,  but  as  a  mat 
ter  of  right,  that  our  northern  States  do  award  to 
us,  in  spite  of  all  real  or  assumed  prejudice 
against  us  and  our  institutions,  precisely  that 
measure  of  justice  which  the  Constitution  in 
tended.  Let  them,  in  this  matter,  act  up  to  its 
true  intent  and  meaning.  .We  ask  nothing  more. 

Such  has  been  our  devotion  to  the  Union,  that 
we  have  borne,  with  a  patience  that  surprises  our 
selves  when  we  think  of  it,  the  many  serious 
evils  inflicted  upon  us  by  your  studied  denial  of 
this  our  constitutional  right.  And  such  is  still 
our  desire  to  maintain  the  Union,  that  we  are 
even  now  willing  to  forget  and  to  forgive  the  past, 
in  consideration  of  justice  hereafter. 

But  there  is  another  question  as  important  to 
us  of  the  South  as  that  I  have  just  discussed, 
scarcely  less  injurious  to  her  present  interests, 
and,  if  possible,  far  more  alarming  as  to  its  fu 
ture  effects  upon  our  welfare;  and  that  is,  your 
assuming  the  right  to  this  Government  to  exclude 
slavery  from  the  Territories  of  the  United  States. 
These  Territories  are  the  common  property  of 
the  States,  acquired  by  the  joint  blood  and  treas 
ure  of  all,  through  the  agency  of  this  Govern 
ment.  Being  thus  acquired,  they  are  the  prop 
erty  of  each  of  the  States,  and  of  all.  They  are 
the  property  of  Virginia,  as  much  as  of  New 
York  or  Massachusetts;  and  are  only  the  prop 
erty  of  the  United  States,  because  the  property  of 


Virginia  and  of  each  of  her  sister  States. 
yet,   by  your  clamorous  threats  to  exclude 
very  from   them   by  law  of  Congress,  you 
virtually  appropriated  them  to  yourselves,  t 
detriment  of  all  the  southern  States  and  the 
habitants.     Is  this   the  treatment  which   w» 
serve  from  you,  our  partners  in  this  Confedei 
j  Is  not  this  a  discrimination  against  the  Sout 
insulting  to  her  honor  as  it  is  injurious  to  he 
terests?     Is  it  that  just  division   to  which  ei 
are  entitled  ?     Is  it  wise  or  politic  thus  to  ex* 
us  from  all  participation  in  the  fruits  of  our 
efforts  ?    And  does  not  such  a  course  hold  o 
the  States  thus  placed  under  the  ban,  the  stroi 
possible   motive   to    withhold    from    the   Fe 
head   all  assistance  in  future  wars,  the  po 
result  of  which  may  be  the  acquisition  of 
tory  ?,. 

But  let  us  leave  these  general,  yet  unanswer 
appeals  to  justice  and  right,  and  examine  whc 
you  have  the  power  thus  to  legislate.    The  po 
granted  to  this  Federal  Government  are  fe 
number,  and  iimite'd  in  extent:  and  all  power 
delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the  Constitu 
are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively,  or  U 
people.  And  whenever  "a  question  arises  con 
'  ing  the  constitutionality  of  a  particular  power 
'  first  question  is,  whether  the  power  be  expre 
'  in  the  Constitution.     If  it  be,  the  question  is 
'  cided.     If  it  be  not  expressed,  the  next  inq 
'  must  be,  whether  it  is  properly  an  incident 
'  express  power,  and  necessary  to  its  executio 
'  it  be,  it  may  be  exercised  by  Congress.     If 
'  not,  Congress  cannot  exercise  it."    This  i 
test  given  us  by  Mr.  Madison,  in  his  well  kn 
report  of  1799-1800,  by  which  to  try  the  val 
of  all  doubtful   powers  claimed  for  this  Goi 
ment;  and  I  have  quoted  its  precise  language 
cause,  as  authority,  it  is  as  much  respected,  '. 
lieve,  by  Democrats  of  the  North   as  by  tho 
the  South.     I  therefore  invoke  my  political  b 
ren  from  that  portion  of  our  country  to  apply 
test,  as  given  us  by  Mr.  Madison,  to  the  pow 
exclude  slavery   from  the  Territories   by  la 
Congress;  and  I  entreat  them  not  to  permit  1 
question  of  slavery  to  be  used  as  a  device  to  dr 
them  into  constructions  of  the  Federal  Const 
tion,  which  hereafter  may  prove  fatal  to  all  tr 
reserved  rights.     It  is  wise  from  time  to  time 
look  back  to  the  old  landmarks,  to  determine  h 
far  we  may  have  deviated  from  that  boundary  1 
which  separates  the  powers  of  this  Governm 
from  those  of  our  respective  States.     All  the  t. 
dencies  of  the   times   point  to  consolidation- 
evil  as   much  to  be  apprehended  by  the  friends 
human  liberty  as  the  disruption  of  our  Union  ii 
many  fragments. 

The  only  clause  of  the  Constitution  under  whi 
this  power  is  claimed  as  expressly  granted,  is  tl 
which  declares  that  "the  Congress  shall  ho 
power  to  dispose  of,  and  make  all  needful  ru 
and  regulations  respecting,  the  territory  or  otl 
property  belonging  to  the  United  States."  Now 
think  it  clear  that  no  power  to  govern  the  Ter 
lories  is  conferred  by  this  clause  of  the  Const! 
tion,  but  simply  the  power  to  manage  and  dispc 
of  them  as  property.  It  refers  to  the  territory 
property,  and  as  property  only.  The  power 
to  dispose  of- — an  expression  applicable  to  propei 
alone.  And  then  that  which  may  be  disposed 
must  belong  to  the  United  States— language  al 


gether  appropriate  to  territory  as  property,  but  un 
intelligible  when  applied  to  territory  in  any  other 
sense.  And  "  the  rules  and  regulations"  which, 
under  this  clause  of  the  Constitution,  Congress 
may  enact  respecting  the  territory,  are  simply  the 
rules  and  regulations  which  it  may  enforce  as  to 
all  other  property  of  the  United  States. 

And  again,  if  the  expression  "  rules  and  regu 
lations"  carries  with  it  the  exclusive  power  of 
making  laws,  as  is  contended,  what  was  the  ne 
cessity  for  giving  Congress,  in  another  clause  of  the 
Constitution,  the  exclusive  power  of  legislation 
over  such  places  as  might  be  purchased  by  Con 
gress  for  the  erection  of  forts,  magazines,  arsenals 
and  other  needful  buildings  ?  For  these  places  when 
purchased,  become  property  belonging  to  the 
United  States,  respecting  which  Congress  may, 
by  authority  of  the  clause  we  are  considering, 
make  all  "  needful  rules  and  regulations;"  and  if 
these  "  rules  and  regulations"  include  the  power 
of  legislation,  why  do  so  unnecessary  a  thing  as 
to  grant  in  express  terms  the  power  of  legislation 
over  them  ? 

But  it  is  said  that  in  several  cases  the  Supreme 
Court  has  decided  that  Congress  has  this  power 
of  legislation  over  the  Territories,  by  virtue  of  this 
very  grant  of  power  to  make  ail  "  needful  rules 
and  regulations."  I  should  like  to  comment  upon 
these  cases,  but  my  time  will  not  permit  me.  I 
can  only  say,  that  I  believe  there  is  no  case  in 
which  that  tribunal  has  decided  that  Congress  de 
rives  its  legislative  power  over  the  Territories  from 
any  express  grant  in  the  Constitution. 

I  think,  therefore,  I  may  assert  that  no  such 
power  of  legislation  is  expressed  in  the  Constitu 
tion. 

Is  this  power,  then,  properly  an  incident  to  any 
express  power,  and  necessary  to  its  execution  ? 
The  only  clauses  of  the  Constitution  under  which , 
in  this  view,  this  power  is  claimed,  are  those  which 
authorize  Congress  to  "declare  war,"  and  to 
"  make  treaties."  Each  of  these  powers  includes, 
and  in  their  exercise  will  lead,  as  they  have  here 
tofore  led,  to  the  acquiring  of  territory.  And  this 
territory,  when  acquired,  must  be  governed,  and 
governed  by  Congress,  that  being  the  agent  that 
acquired  it  for  the  States,  and  which  must  govern 
it  for  the  States.  And  it  is  in  this  way  only  that 
Congress  obtains  its  right  to  legislate  for  the  Ter 
ritories.  But  this  power  of  legislation  being  im- 
pliedly  vested  in  Congress  only  because  necessary 
for  the  preservation  of  that,  which  is  acquired,  is 
clearly  limited  to  such  legislation  as  is  necessary 
for  that  purpose.  And  it  would  be  a  flagrant  de 
parture  from  the  rule  of  construction  laid  down  by 
Mr.  Madison,  to  extend  this  implied  power  beyond 
what  is  "  necessary  and  proper"  for  the  protection 
of  the  territory.  And  as  I  take  it  for  granted  that 
no  one  will  contend  that  the  exclusion  of  slavery 
from  the  Territories  of  the  United  States  is  neces 
sary  for  their  preservation  and  protection,  I  draw 
the  conclusion  that  the  right  to  exclude  it  is  not 
within  the  scope  of  the  powers  of  Congress,  and 
that  any  law  enacted  by  Congress  for  its  exclusion 
would  be  unconstitutional  and  void. 

It  is  said,  however,  that  we  must  follow  the  pre 
cedent  set  us  by  the  ordinance  of  1787.  We  must 
do  nothing  of  the  kind,  if  satisfied  that  the  power 
is  not  granted  to  Congress  by  the  Constitution. 
This  would  be  to  violate  the  Constitution  which 
we  have  sworn  to  support.  But  how  can  that 


ordinance,  enacted  as  it  was  prior  to  the  adoption 
of  our  Constitution,  be  used  as  a  precedent  by 
which  to  interpret  that  Constitution? 

One  argument  that  has  frequently  been  used  in 
support  of  the  ordinance  of  1787,  is,  that  as  Vir 
ginia,  before  the  cession,  had  the  right  to  exclude 
slavery  from  the  northwestern  Territory,  this  right 
was  properly  exercised  by  the  old  Congress;  it,  by 
the  cession,  having  been  invested  with  all  the  rights 
and  powers  which  before  belonged  to  Virginia.  I 
must  confess  I  never  felt  the  force  of  this  reason 
ing:  first,  because  I  doubt  the  right  of  an  ordinary 
Legislature  to  declare  that  not  to  be  property  which 
before  was  property;  and  secondly,  because  no 
such  power  was  conferred  by  the  States  upon  the 
Confederation,  and  it  could  only  exercise  such 
powers  as  were  granted  to  it.  1  therefore  regard 
the  ordinance  of  1787  as  an  act  of  usurpation — a 
beacon  to  warn,  not  alight  to  be  followed.  But 
this  is  immaterial — for  when  the  clause  excluding 
slavery  was  first  proposed,  it  did  not  receive  the 
vote  of  a  single  southern  State.  Nor  did  this  ex 
clusion  prevail  until  several  years  afterwards,  when 
it  was  coupled  with  the  power  to  reclaim  fugitive 
slaves.  And  (to  adopt  a  suggestion  made  some 
years  since  by  a  very  distinguished  Senator  from 
South  Carolina,  whose  present  serious  indisposi 
tion  is  sincerely  regretted,  1  am  sure,  by  every 
member  of  this  House)  to  obtain  its  passage,  ad 
vantage  was  taken  of  the  inconvenience  to  which  the 
South  was  subjected  for  want  of  such  a  provision; 
and  it  is  scarcely  fair  to  bring  forward,  as  worthy 
of  imitation,  an  enactment  which  had  its  origin  in 
such  a  source. 

And  then  again,  it  is  said  that,  by  the  Missouri 
compromise,  (most  improperly  so  called,)  theSouth 
is  estopped  from  raising  this  objection.  But,  in 
reply,  it  should  be  remembered  that  that  law  was 
forced  upon  us  by  northern  votes,  and  its  enact 
ment  can  no  more  prove  the  constitutional  power 
of  Congress  to  exclude  slavery  from  the  Terri 
tories,  than  the  law  to  establish  a  United  States 
bank  determines  the  constitutionality  of  a  bank. 
But  the  South  has  submitted  to  that  compromise ! 
It  has,  and  it  is  yet  willing  to  extend  the  line  of 
separation  to  the  Pacific.  Having  been  over 
powered  in  the  struggle  which  preceded  its  adop 
tion,  it  is  still  willing  to  yield  to  the  principles 
then  determined  on  for  the  division  of  the  Territo 
ries,  in  place  of  again  engaging  in  a  strife,  in 
which  it  would  most  probably  be  again  defeated. 

Whilst  on  this  subject,  I  will  very  briefly  allude 
to  a  view  which  I  have  often  heard  presented  by 
those  who  claim  absolute  power  for  Congress  over 
the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  Territories;  and  that 
is,  that  the  acquisition  of  territory  was  not  within 
the  contemplation  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitu 
tion,  and  that  therefore  the  powers  of  Congress 
over  acquired  Territories  are  not  restricted  by  the 
Constitution.  If  the  fact  here  asserted  were  true, 
(which  I  by  no  means  admit,  for  I  cannot  believe 
that  the  statesmen  of  that  day  did  not  foresee  the 
necessity  pf  at  least  so  much  additional  territory 
as  would  secure  to  us  the  command  of  the  Missis 
sippi  river,)  it  would  by  no  means  establish  the 
proposition  contended  for.  It  would  leave  us  no 
other  alternative  than  to  make  such  a  disposition 
of  the  territory  as  would  be  fair  and  just  between 
the  different  States  whose  common  treasure  had 
purchased  it,  or  such  as  the  parties  to  the  Consti 
tution  would  themselves  most  probably  have  made, 


had  this  subject  been  then  brought  under  their 
consideration. 

For  these  various  reasons  I  think  I  have  some 
ground  for  saying  that  the  North  has  not  made 
out  its  constitutional  right  to  enact  the  laws  with 
which  they  threaten  us,  and  that  I  am  justified  in 
the  declaration  that  their  continued  efforts  to  pass 
such  laws  have  been,  in  spirit  and  in  fact,  aggres 
sive  upon  the  rights  of  the  southern  States. 

But  the  opinion  has  been  frequently  expressed 
on  this,  floor,  and  seems  to  be  a  very  general  one 
in  portions  of  the  country,  that  as  to  the  Territo 
ries  which  we  have  acquired  from  Mexico  by  our 
late  treaty  of  peace  and  boundaries  with  her,  (and 
it  is  as  to  these  Territories  only  that  this  power  in 
Congress  over  the  subject  of  slavery  has  any  prac 
tical  bearing  at  this  time,)  the  old  Mexican  laws 
abolishing  slavery  still  prevail  there,  and  prohibit 
its  existence:  that  therefore  the  South  ought  to  yield 
to  the  insertion  of  a  clause  prohibiting  slavery  into 
all  bills  for  the  government  of  these  territories, 
because  by  so  doing  it  in  fact  yields  nothing. 

But  if  this  opinion  be  sound,  which  I  by  no 
means  assent  to,  why  should  the  North  insist  upon 
such  a  provision,  and  insist  so  strenuously  as  to 
defeat  every  territorial  bill  which  does  not  con 
tain  such  a  provision  ?  Is  it  merely  to  obtain  a 
victory  over  the  States  of  the  South  ?  Or  is  it  for 
the  purpose  of  establishing  another  precedent  by 
which  to  bind  us  on  some  future  day?  Or  is  it 
because  it  has  no  confidence  in  the  opinion  it  so 
boldly  advances  ?  One  thing  is  certain,  that  slavery 
is  either  excluded  from  these  Territories  by  this 
Mexican  or  local  lav/,  or  it  is  not.  If  it  is  so  ex 
cluded,  there  is  no  necessity  to  exclude  it  by  act  of 
Congress.  If  it  is  not  so  excluded,  such  an  act 
would  be  unjust,  as  it  would  virtually  deny  to  one 
portion  of  the  Confederacy  a  ri^ht  which  it  would 
confer  upon  another — the  right  to  enter  upon,  and 
possess,  and  cultivate  the  public  lands  in  those 
Territories. 

And  what,  sir,  wns  the  spectacle  presented  to 
the  nation  but  the  other  day,  when  an  attempt 
was  made  to  force  through  this  House,  without 
debate,  a  resolution  instructing  one  of  our  com 
mittees  to  report  a  bill  for  the  admission  of  Cali 
fornia  as  a  State  into  this  Union,  and  expressly 
prohibiting  that  committee  from  connecting  with 
that  subject  any  regulations  or  provisions  respect 
ing  our  other  Territories!  Yes,  sir,  although 
California  claims  to  come  into  this  Union  with 
boundaries  very  objectionable — her  sea-coast  ex 
tending  over  nine  hundred  miles,  reaching  as  far 
as  from  Boston  to  Savannah — yet  under  this  reso 
lution  we  were  not  to  be  allowed  the  privilege  of 
discussing  the  propriety  of  admitting  her  with 
such  disproportioned  limits  ; — we  were  not  to 
consider  whether  this  would  be  just  or  unjust  to 
those  of  our  citizens  who  occupy  other  portions 
of  that  western  territory.  And  although  we 
have  good  reasons  for  suspecting  that  the  Execu 
tive  has,  in  connection  with  this  California  consti 
tution,  been  guilty  of  usurpation,  and  has  arro 
gated  to  himself  powers  which  belong  to'Congress 
alone,  the  representatives  of  the  people  were  to  be 
prohibited  from  freely  canvassing  his  conduct,  and 


deciding  what  measures  the  public  safety  de 
manded  to  protect  our  constituents  from  a  repe 
tition  of  such  unlawful  attempts.  The  admission 
of  California,  the  great  measure  of  the  session, 
was  to  be  forced  through  by  a  denial  of  the  dear 
est  right  of  this  body,  the  right  of  free  discussion 
upon  public  men  and  public  measures;  and  the 
representatives  of  the  people,  under  the  operation 
of  a  gag,  were  to  be  degraded  into  mere  machines 
to  register  the  will  of  an  arbitrary,  unreasoning 
majority.  But,  sir,  the  prohibitory  clause  of  that 
resolution  explains  everything.  It  shows  that 
there  are  factionists  here  unwilling  to  discuss  pub 
lic  measures,  and  fully  as  unwilling  to  enter  upon 
an  attempt  to  settle  the  various  matters  of  diffi 
culty  and  dispute  which  divide  us  sectionally, 
producing  alarm  and  uneasiness  throughout  the 
country,  and  causing  many  a  patriot  to  fear  that 
the  sacrifices  we  made  for  liberty  and  for  union  in 
years  that  have  passed,  were  made  in  vain. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  had  intended  to  make  some 
comment  upon  the  great  revolution  in  the  public 
sentiment  of  the  North  upon  this  slavery  question, 
which  the  last  few  years  have  brought  about.  I 
had  intended  to  have  brought  to  your  notice  the 
public  acts  and  writings  of  Van  Buren,  of  Wright, 
Paulding,  and  others,  and  to  have  asked  why  this 
entire  change  of  opinion.  But  I  fear,  sir,  that  I 
am  fatiguing  both  you  and  the  committee. 

Some  twelve  or  fourteen  years  ago  we  had  in 
the  North  many  gallant  supporters  and  defenders 
of  our  rights.  From  all  that  I  can  learn,  they  have 
one  by  one  deserted  us,  until  now  those  still  true 
to  us,  and  (I  say  it  intending  no  disrespect  to  any 
one)  still  true  to  the  principles  of  the  Constitution, 
by  the  very  strangeness  of  their  attitude  more 
strongly  mark  the  almost  universal  defection. 
Whilst  we  regret  the  desertion  of  those  who  once 
occupied  so  large  a  space  in  our  regards,  let  us, 
"with  hooks  of  steel,"  grapple  to  us  the  few  yet 
left.  Amongst  these  I  am  sure  I  may  include  a 
distinguished  Senator  from  Michigan,  [Mr.  CASS,] 
and  a  no  less  distinguished  Senator  from  New 
York,  [Mr.  DICKINSON,]  and  I  trust,  that  before 
this  session  closes,  many  northern  representatives 
in  this  chamber  will,  for  the  sake  of  peace  and  to 
preserve  the  Union,  range  themselves  with  us  un 
der  the  only  banner  beneath  which  confederated 
republics  can  safely  form,  the  banner  of  Equality  of 
rights,  and  of  Abstinence  from  the  exercise  of  all  doubt 
ful  powers.  i 

News  of  the  most  cheering  kind  has  already 
reached  us  from  the  North.  And  let  the  tempest 
rage  here  as  loud  as  it  may,  I  shall  hope  on  to  the 
last  that  that  devotion  to  the  Union,  which  we  are 
told  is  so  wide-spread  a  feeling  at  the  North,  will 
lead  to  more  moderate  measures  here,  and  be  the 
means  of  saving  the  Union. 

But  should  I  be  disappointed  in  this  hope — 
should  aggression  be  accumulated  upon  aggression, 
and  wrong  upon  wrong — it  is  not  for  me  to  predict 
what  line  of  conduct  Virginia  will  pursue.  .  That 
is  not  within  the  province  of  any  of  her  represent 
atives  here.  That  she  will  determine  for  herself 
in  convention  of  her  people;  and  that  determina 
tion  once  made  will  be  binding  upon  all  her  sons. 


